Comments on: Is “proactive” even a word?

By: Santiago

Santiago — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:51:58 +0000

“Proactive” is used as an antonym for “reactive.” Therefore, it should be (if it must be anything and “active” itself is not enough, which it is) “preactive.” “Proactive” is meaningless.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:34:09 +0000

Wild animals are deterministic. A stimulus will result in a preprogramed response. The wild animal has never thought of the future stimulus to plan a response.

Humans have a vestige of this determinism. A proactive person can think ahead to the future stimulus and plan a response. The closer that planning is to the stimulus the less proactive we are and the more reactive we become.

By: Santiago

Santiago — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:07:26 +0000

Proactive is no more an adjective than reference is a verb (Ted Robinson, stop using the latter, please!) or than impact means to affect.

By: Greg Hack

Greg Hack — Thu, 27 May 2010 04:24:57 +0000

Proactive is not a word. Sorry. It is a vocable — a collection of letters that mean nothing. People who make up “words” such as this do damage to the language, which means they do damage to the human race. Shame on them.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:54:57 +0000

Geoff- discrete not binary.

Perhaps that is a better way of putting it. But I think that since it was a true/false dichotomy I was talking about in #6 calling it binary works too.

By: Forest Gump

Forest Gump — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:07:53 +0000

Forest Gump nicely summarizes the free will/deterministic argument.
“Life is like a box of chocolates…”
We don’t know the cards we’ll be dealt but we still have to play them as best as we can.
All this may sound trite but according to occams law the simplest answer is usually the correct.
Geoff- discrete not binary.
Proactive, a sort of double positive, is almost as embarrassing to hear as a double negative. I aint no scholar, but I am highly suspect of anyone who often uses it alot, or often, or many times.

By: Steven Bissell

Steven Bissell — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:02:03 +0000

Did Newton say, “For every (pro)action there is an equal and opposite reaction”? I think not. Sadly one of the disadvantages of English is that words such as this are allowed. We will have to live with it, but I’ll never use it.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:36:48 +0000

Nice Simpsons quote, Chris.

No, you aren’t necessarily blinded by LFW leanings. Despite all other arguments, the fatal flaw of determinism (especially in Mormonism) is the responsibility and judgment issue. If there is no real free will there is no real responsibility and therefore we end up with predestination in one form or another.

By: chris runoff

chris runoff — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 06:28:29 +0000

One of my favorite quotes from the Simpsons is in the setting of 3 studio execs trying to spruce up Krusty’s show. Both “proactive” and “paradigm” are used try sell Krusty on a new character for his show and exec number 3 says, “Excuse me, but proactive and paradigm aren’t these just words that stupid people invented to sound smart? — I’m fired aren’t I?”

Anyway, I side with you Geoff on the LFW comment. Either it exists or it doesn’t, I don’t see much room for a concept of pseudo-free will.

The problem I always have with determinism is with responsibility, like you’ve mentioned in your original post. If what I am and do is merely a product of external programming, how could I ever be justly held accountable for sin? And if I can’t be held accountable for sin, what need is there for an Atonement?

I come to this question every time I start to think about determinism and I can’t see any sort of legitimate answer for it. Perhaps I’m blinded by my bias toward LFW.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:49:01 +0000

There are obviously nuances that we have not gotten into yet. The debate is generally not over the existence of determinism in the universe (I fully accept the existence of determinism, for instance); rather, it is over the existence of libertarian free will. So yes, the possibilities are binary — either free will (in the full libertarian sense) exists or it doesn’t. (The “hypothetical free will” the compatibilists try to pass off doesn’t cut it.) If LFW doesn’t exist then we all are fated and we are all simply reacting to our programming all of the time (whether we realize it or not). That is at odds with the revelations in my opinion. In his Habit 1 Covey rejects the idea that we are completely determined beings and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Do you have a third option in mind?